Regan's Subject-Of-A-Life

When there are many biocentric individualists appealing to extend the moral standing to the other creatures than human, they always focus their minds on the every individual in the system no matter whether this individual is either conscious or non-conscious. Like the Taylor argued, “conscious or not, all are equally teleological centers of life in the sense that each is unified system of goal0oriented activities directed toward their preservation and well-being.” (taylor, 210). Gary Varner, as one member in the group of the biocentric individualism, is also having the similar argument that every non-conscious and conscious entity should have the moral standing in the different way. In this essay, I will first dispart and reconstruct Gary Varner’s argument into four premises and then indicate how it contradicts with the Peter Singer’s argument whose view is deviate from that of Varner in terms of the required conditions with which giving one entity moral standing.

Our knowledge of ecology also teaches us that by killing animals we may be tampering with the delicate ecosystem and inviting our own destruction. Human beings are probably the most intelligent creatures on earth. That is why they have a great responsibility of keeping intact the life of the earth. Indiscriminate killing for sport is an uncivilized and anti-intellectual activity, because we should share this world with the other animals and live in harmony with them. Harmonious existence is the key to civilization and survival.

Peter Singer has written many works in support of animal rights. In one of his greatest works Animal Liberation, Singer goes into great depths on how similar in biology animals are to human beings. Another strong point was not only the biological resemblance, but also the behavioral tendencies and traits humans and nonhuman species share. There are two major areas of focus that Singer puts emphasis on that need to be recognized for the purposes of my argument. One focus is this utilitarian approach that only the human species carry: the belief of ethical and morally good behavior should be extended to the consideration of nonhuman species. The second focus that is the basis for my argument is Singer’s argument against a huge human social construct labeled speciesism.

To put this on equal terms, think one day you and your family are taking a leisurely stroll down the park. While walking down the spark another person randomly tries to kill you. But, no one but your mom is wounded with a poisoned wound without an antidote. Frighten you would not be able to know or think straight with the sight of someone dear to you dying right in front of your eyes. Now if you would please take that picture and put it in terms of an animal being hunted by another species far more advanced, without a way to protect themselves. Is it really morally right to kill another living thing for sport? Especially when the animal involved is on the endangered species list, to be fair, it is on the endangered species list for a reason because it is on the verge of becoming extinct. So let me ask you again why should anybody think it's more to hunt and kill animals that are endangered or simply in our backyards. it is morally wrong to continue trophy hunting as a Leisure activity when endangered animals are

Ronald Regan, the 40th president of the United States, displayed his support for Barry Goldwater. Regan was a democrat previous of his campaign for Barry Goldwater. He also claims that the Democratic Party “left” him. Freedom can be defined in many words, and Regan defined it as, “the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.” He is saying that if Goldwater was elected then he would give this right back to the American People. Regan claims that the government was taking millions of dollars in taxes, but spends in in under a day. The country’s debt is increasing more than it has ever in the past, and the people aren’t aware how this is happening. People don’t know what goes on within the government, and the public isn’t allowed to know everything that the government is ding either. The government should be more transparent with the people since the

In this passage the central conclusion is that the value of life, whether that be humans or animals is contributed to the quality of life, the quality is related to its richness being related to the life’s capacity of enrichment. (LaFollette, Hugh. Ethics in Practice: An Anthology. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1997. Print.) Frey gives support to this conclusion by recognizing that not all individuals from a moral group are individuals that have lives with equal value or significance within both humans and animals. (LaFollette, Hugh. Ethics in Practice: An Anthology. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1997. Print.) In support this statement, Frey claims there are different moral standings of most human lives. Some examples were an infant with disadvantages, a disabled person and elderly person with a severe case of Alzheimer’s disease. Frey then supports these claims by saying that if we agree with these claims it is clear that we are not using species membership to determine the value and moral standing of an individual but instead as the quality of an individual’s life. An additional support of the central conclusion is that this view allows for animals to have more value than a human

Light and Rolston define these terms in their text as, “The class of moral patients is that class of beings to whom we owe ethical obligations, when those obligations can be ascertained, and are deserving of what we have been calling moral considerability. Moral agents are defined as that class of moral patients, usually only persons, to whom we owe obligations and who, in return, are held to be morally responsible for their actions. All moral agents are moral patients but not all moral patients are moral agents. When we accord moral agents moral recognition we can expect them to live up to certain duties related to

Due to every individual, human and non-human, being alive with inherent value, Regan has a stance against hunting for sport, and uses his idea of the rights view to battle against it. The rights view is the “policies that lessen the total amount of

In “The Case for Animal Rights,” Regan states that instead of viewing animals as existing solely for human disposal, or as having value only because they retain the same feelings of pain and satisfaction humans do, we should consider animals as

Regan effectively presented his notions, reinforced by legit factual evidence, lecturing all likely parts, whereas Rose built his thoughts on facts and examples solely from research and science and that made him that much less credible and it made his arguments narrow. Rose's statements and ideas can be effortlessly weakened rather than Regan's arguments, because there are definitely potential doubts about his biasedness, and also his arguments are just really narrow. Though Rose made some very solid points in his essay, he could have been a lot more effective, and Regan’s essay contains just about everything and talks about the obvious wrongs that the rest of us cannot and should not

One example of the Reagan Doctrine's application was in Nicaragua. At the time Nicaragua was ruled by a military government that had been established by the Sandinista revolutionaries after overthrowing Somoza, who was a vicious and dishonest dictator. The Reagan administration along with the CIA helped to unite a Nicaraguan guerilla force known as the Contras. They become the most well-known American-backed guerilla army under the Reagan Doctrine. Some considered the Contras to be a terrorist organization, while others thought of them as valiant, anti-communist freedom fighters. The Reagan administration believed in the Contra's cause but by the mid 1980's it was clear to the US policymakers that a military victory in Nicaragua would not be possible for the Contras without a direct U.S. military intervention.

The public has had strong influences on initiating the actions of the Regan Administration and the Clinton Administration on environmental policies. During the Regan administration, Anne Gorsuch head of the EPA and James Watt secretary of the interior both resigned due to OIRA procedure and activities which negatively affected environmental protections. The weakening of the EPA during Presidents Regan’s first term was influenced to change in his second term as president due to public opinion. During the Clinton Administration, Bruce Babbit, secretary of the interior launched a campaign to change western land use policies and to raise grazing fees on public land. The ranchers and their representatives in congress advocated to have the proposals

In the article “How to Worry About Endangered Species” by Tom Regan, he attempts to explain why we shouldn’t give members of endangered species any more rights or importance than individual organisms of any species. According to the rights view, which is the moral view to which he subscribes, we ought to protect endangered species, not because there are fewer of them, but because individual organisms which are part of that species already have valid moral claims and rights. Regan believes that to single out the endangered species for protection solely on the basis of their diminishing numbers leads to the misunderstanding that these animals should be the only ones to be protected and included in our moral community. He continues further to

In his essay "Are Zoos Morally Defensible?" Tom Regan uses utilitarian and rights approaches to argue that zoos are not morally defensible. However, the answer he reaches is a default answer. His actual argument is that it is impossible to acquire all of the information that one would need to answer the question of whether zoos are morally defensible, which leads him to the conclusion that they are not defensible. He reaches this conclusion by focusing on the notion that animals have certain rights and that anything that abrogates those rights, as confinement in a zoo necessarily does, must be justifiable for some compelling reason. Because he does not think it is possible to know, much less to compare, the pros and cons of placing animals in a zoo, he does not reach the conclusion that zoos are morally indefensible, even though that appears to be his "gut feeling," but instead comes to the conclusion that there is not an ethical theory that explains why zoos are morally defensible.

Neil Schulman also holds a dominant worldview and asserts that the ‘animal rights’ movement is relying upon a logical fallacy which is based on commonly restricted premises. The first premise is that “human beings are no different from other animals, with no divine or elevated nature which makes us distinct” (1) Second, human beings are “ethically bound not to use other animals for their own selfish purposes” (1) He completely goes against these arguments and directly states that animal rights do not exist in any case (1).